Articles and publications

Trip to Russia

1. To minimize the risks, I recommend that the father obtain a court order determining the place of residence of the child as with the father and such order shall provide for the mother to have parental access to the child. Such an agreement has full force and effect.

2. Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides that the parties by agreement may stipulate to a jurisdiction where any issue would be tried. This Code applies to all matters, including custodial disputes.

3. You should also add Conflict of Laws provision: the parties agree that even were this matter brought before any court of the Russian Federation, the American Law will apply based on Articles 166 and 167 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, and any dispute relating to enforcement of the agreement will be consistent with this provision.

4. The agreement must reference Articles 61-79 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation.

5. The agreement must also be signed in one day, by both parties simultaneously, and must be notarized by a single notary. It must be stated that each party is represented by his or her lawyer, and the notary must be a third party who is not related to either of the attorneys. There must be apostille and a notarized Russian translation of the agreement. To avoid misinterpretation of agreement (see art 431 of Russian Civil Code), I recommend to sign it in both languages at the same time. Read More »

Russian Citizen Osipova Jailed in US Suffers From Unstable Mental Condition

If convicted, Osipova is facing up to three years in a US federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000 on the international parental child abduction charge. Read More »

Ushakov vs Russia, Case # 15122/17

Karina Duvall was an attorney for the mother (I.K.) in Appellate Division, and won the case on February 3rd, 2016. The father (V.U.) unsuccessfully tried to reverse this order in Cassation Court, and now his attorney filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights. Read More »

Bajrami v. Albania - 35853/04

Law: The custody judgment had remained unenforced for approximately two years for which no blame could be attributed to the applicant, who regularly took steps to secure the return of his daughter. Under Albanian law there was no specific remedy to prevent or punish cases of abduction of children from the territory of that country. In particular, Albania is not a State Party to the Hague Convention and has not yet implemented the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, whereas the European Convention on Human Rights requires States to take all necessary measures to secure the reunion of parents with their children in accordance with a final judgment of a domestic court. The Albanian legal system did not provide any alternative framework affording the applicant the practical and effective protection that was required by the State's positive obligation enshrined in Article 8. Read More »

BIANCHI v. SWITZERLAND

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment[1] in the case of Bianchi v. Switzerland (application no. 7548/04). Read More »